Friday, April 12, 2013

Barker's Newsbites: Friday, April 12, 2013


First... a rant:

Friggin' brown-skinned welfare cretins...

(Got your attention...???)

Anyway... substitute "white" and the point remains the same.

(Except that when they have accents I do have to question whether they're native born Americans... and... if they're not... if they're foreigners... whether they're here legally or illegally... WHY the hell they're allowed to have their hands in my wallet!)

So... I'm behind this piece of $hit on the Walmart check-out line yesterday...

(Oh... sorry... to specify, I'm behind a well dressed Hispanic woman wearing what appeared to be fashionable designer eye-ware who was shopping with her infant and toddler...)

...and when it came for this woman to pay for her purchases - which included toys and junk food - she handed the cashier a form that looked like a check.

In the meantime the cashier's line next to me opened up so I moved over to that station to pay for my purchases.

(To pay for my purchases with my money...)

So... I always chat with the cashiers and often with fellow customers. I was curious about what the welfare leech...

(Er... I mean the nice Hispanic woman with the two kids...)

...had handed "her" cashier and so... I asked.

The answer: SNAP Benefits.

Well... first I ranted and raved to that cashier...

Then I ranted and raved to my cashier...

Then I ranted and raved to the "self-service lines" attendant.

And then I went home... $26 dollars poorer...

I don't wanna feed these people. I don't wanna cloth these people. I don't wanna shelter these people. 

By "these people"... I mean the majority... probably the vast majority... who are on welfare.

Yep. There are people out there who need help. No doubt! But I'm absolutely convinced that the majority... a very, very large majority... of "these people" are leeches who shouldn't be getting one red cent of my money or yours.

If you're on SNAP... why are you buying toys? (Why are you smoking... why are you drinking... why are you gambling... which we know many of "these people" do!)

I don't know, folks... I just find the whole thing depressing... and quite frankly... maddening.

10 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_KERRY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-04-12-07-42-48

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry delivered a stark warning to North Korea on Friday not to test-fire a mid-range missile...

* OR...??? (A STARK WARNING THAT IF NORTH KOREA TESTS SAID MISSILE WE'LL DO... WHAT, PRECISELY...???

...while rejecting a new U.S. intelligence report suggesting significant progress in the communist regime's nuclear weapons program.

* IF THE INTELLIGENCE REPORT IS WRONG... WELL... WHOSE HEAD IS GONNA ROLL FOR RELEASING FAULTY INTELLIGENCE? (MY POINT, FOLKS, IS THAT THE FOLKS WHO RELEASED THE INTELLIGENCE ARE MEMBERS OF THE SAME OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AS KERRY; ONE BRANCH SAYS ONE THING, THE OTHER BRANCH SAYS THE OTHER... WHO IS RIGHT - AND IS THERE A COST IN BEING WRONG...???

Kicking off four days of talks in an East Asia beset by increasing North Korean threats, Kerry told reporters in Seoul that Pyongyang and its enigmatic young leader would only increase their isolation if they launched the missile...

* SO... IS THAT THE WARNING... THE PRICE NORTH KOREA WILL PAY FOR DEFYING US...? THEY'LL BECOME... er... MORE INSOLATED...???

* WOW! THEY MUST BE SHAKING IN THEIR BOOTS!

"If Kim Jong Un decides to launch a missile, whether it's across the Sea of Japan or some other direction, he will be choosing willfully to ignore the entire international community," Kerry told reporters. "And it will be a provocation and unwanted act that will raise people's temperatures."

* AH... I SEE... (*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)... DEFYING US WILL BE A "PROVOCATION" THAT WILL... er... RESULT IN... er... RAISING... PEOPLE'S... TEMPERATURES.

* HEY... NORTH KOREA... (*PAUSE*)... IF I MIGHT SUGGEST A TARGET... (HINT: HE WIND SURFS...)

(*SNORT*)

William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

Infant beheadings.

Severed baby feet in jars.

A child screaming after it was delivered alive during an abortion procedure.

Haven't heard about these sickening accusations?

* I HAVE. I DOUBT THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS HAVE.

It's not your fault.

* IN A WAY IT IS THE PEOPLES' FAULT. THEY REFUSE TO DEMAND PROFESSIONALISM FROM THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA. THUS...

(*SHRUG*)

Since the murder trial of Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell began March 18, there has been precious little coverage of the case that should be on every news show and front page.

* THINK ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS IF YOU DON'T IMMEDIATELY RECOGNIZE THE NAME "KERMIT GOSNELL" YET CONSIDER YOURSELF REASONABLY WELL-READ AND AWARE OF CURRENT EVENTS.

The revolting revelations of Gosnell's former staff, who have been testifying to what they witnessed and did during late-term abortions, should shock anyone with a heart. NBC-10 Philadelphia reported that, Stephen Massof, a former Gosnell worker, "described how he snipped the spinal cords of babies, calling it, 'literally a beheading. It is separating the brain from the body."

One former worker, Adrienne Moton, testified that Gosnell taught her his "snipping" technique to use on infants born alive.

Massof, who, like other witnesses, has himself pleaded guilty to serious crimes, testified "It would rain fetuses. Fetuses and blood all over the place."

Here is the headline the Associated Press put on a story about his testimony that he saw 100 babies born and then snipped: "Staffer describes chaos at PA abortion clinic."

* CHAOS...???

"Chaos" isn't really the story here.

* TO BE CONTINUED...

William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

Butchering babies that were already born and were older than the state's 24-week limit for abortions is the story.

(There is a reason the late Democratic senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan called this procedure infanticide.)

Planned Parenthood recently claimed that the possibility of infants surviving late-term abortions was "highly unusual." The Gosnell case suggests otherwise.

Regardless of such quibbles, about whether Gosnell was killing the infants one second after they left the womb instead of partially inside or completely inside the womb — as in a routine late-term abortion — is merely a matter of geography. That one is murder and the other is a legal procedure is morally irreconcilable.

* TRUE... BUT IN A SENSE BEYOND THE POINT OF THIS ARTICLE - WHICH BASICALLY "OUTS" A MEDIA UNWILLING TO DRAW ATTENTION TO THIS CASE... UNWILLING BECAUSE THEY KNOW DETAILS WILL SICKEN READERS AND PERHAPS CHANCE PEOPLE'S MINDS ABOUT ABORTION. THAT'S THE STORY HERE! IF A DOCTOR NAMED "KERMIT" WAS ON TRIAL FOR BEING A SERIAL KILLER OF ADULTS OR EVEN SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN OR TODDLERS... YOU KNOW DAMN WELL THAT THE STORY - AND THE DETAILS - WOULD BE ALL OVER THE MEDIA 24/7!

A Lexis-Nexis search shows none of the news shows on the three major national television networks has mentioned the Gosnell trial in the last three months.

* WELL...???

(The exception is when Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan hijacked a segment on Meet the Press meant to foment outrage over an anti-abortion rights law in some "backward red state.")

* IN OTHER WORDS, AS A TALKING HEAD ON MEET THE PRESS NOONAN BROUGHT UP THE GOSNELL CASE AND PLACED IT IN CONTEXT WITH THE NON-RELATED POINT THE GROUP WAS DISCUSSING. THUS... "HIJACKED."

The Washington Post has not published original reporting on this during the trial...

(*SMIRK*)

...and The New York Times saw fit to run one original story on A-17 on the trial's first day.

(*SNORT*)

They've been silent ever since, despite headline-worthy testimony.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

Let me state the obvious. This should be front page news.

When Rush Limbaugh "attacked" Sandra Fluke, there was non-stop media hysteria. The venerable NBC Nightly News' Brian Williams intoned, "A firestorm of outrage from women after a crude tirade from Rush Limbaugh," as he teased a segment on the brouhaha. Yet, accusations of babies having their heads severed — a major human rights story if there ever was one — doesn't make the cut.

* WELL...??? COM'ON "YOU WHOSE NAME I DARE NOT MENTION," EVEN YOU MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE MSM HAS DELIBERATELY BURIED THIS STORY OUT OF IDEOLOGICAL INTEREST!

You don't have to oppose abortion rights to find late-term abortion abhorrent or to find the Gosnell trial eminently newsworthy. This is not about being "pro-choice" or "pro-life." It's about basic human rights.

* NO... IT'S ABOUT IDEOLOGICALLY IMPOSED SELF-CENSORSHIP AND THE MSM DELIBERATELY DECIDING NOT TO DO ITS JOB!

The deafening silence of too much of the media, once a force for justice in America, is a disgrace.

William R. Barker said...

http://heritageaction.com/2013/04/democrats-are-blocking-resolution-to-honor-lady-thatcher/

A Senate resolution to honor Lady Thatcher was supposed to pass last night. However, per well placed sources on the Hill, Democrats have a hold on the resolution.

* FUCKING SCUMBAG DEMOCRATS...

William R. Barker said...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_EUROPE_FINANCIAL_CRISIS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-04-12-09-12-25

European Union finance ministers say they've agreed to extend the repayment of emergency loans to Ireland and Portugal for a further seven years...

* "EMERGENCY" LOANS... (*GUFFAW*)

* HEY... YA EVER WONDER WHERE THE EUROPEAN UNION GETS THE MONEY TO LOAN IRELAND AND PROTUGAL...

* HMM... AND SEVEN YEARS DOWN THE ROAD... WHEN THE LOANS ARE DUE (WITH ADDED INTEREST)... WHY ARE WE ASSUMING IRELAND AND PORTUGAL WILL BE ABLE TO PAY THEM OFF THEN...??? (AH... HOW MANY OF THE POLITICIANS SUPPORTING THIS NOW WILL BE RETIRED IN SEVEN YEARS...?)

* OH...! GEEZ...! ALLOW ME TO POST THE ENTIRE FIRST PARAGRAPH...!!! (YOU'RE GONNA LUV THIS...!!!)

European Union finance ministers say they've agreed to extend the repayment of emergency loans to Ireland and Portugal for a further seven years, easing the pressure on both countries to exit their bailout programs and resume normal borrowing.

* TO "EXIT" THEIR BAILOUT PROGRAMS...??? (WITHOUT PAYING BACK THE BAILOUTS...?!?! VIA SIMPLY EXTENDING THE REPAYMENT TERM...?!?!)

* OH...! BUT HERE'S THE BEST, FOLKS! (THINK ABOUT THE FOLLOWING...)

* "...AND... RESUME... "NORMAL"... BORROWING."

* SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT: "EMERGENCY" LOANS WERE GIVEN. THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE PAID OFF BY NOW. INSTEAD THEY'RE TO BE PAID BACK (WITH INTEREST) SEVEN YEARS FROM NOW. AND IN THE MEANTIME... MORE "NORMAL" BORROWING WILL TAKE PLACE... MORE UNSUSTAINABLE DEBT WILL BE ADDED... AND THESE LOANS... THEY COME FROM... THIN AIR...???

The move is intended to help the countries to resume long-term bond sales...

* IN ENGLISH: THE MOVE ALLOWS THE COUNTRIES TO "BORROW" EVEN MORE MONEY TO SQUANDER NOW THAT THEY'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO PAY BACK LATER!

...when their bailout loans run dry.

* BUT THAT'S THE POINT, ISN'T IT? THE BAILOUTS NEVER RUN DRY! THIS IS BUT ANOTHER BAILOUT! A BACK-DOOR BAILOUT!

Ireland's [old bailouts] run out later this year, Portugal's in 2014.

* THUS... THE NEW BAILOUTS... WHICH AREN'T BEING CALLED BAILOUTS...

William R. Barker said...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/04/12/president-obama-and-vice-president-biden-2012-tax-returns

Today, the President released his 2012 federal income tax returns. He and the First Lady filed their income tax returns jointly and reported adjusted gross income of $608,611.

The Obamas paid $112,214 in total tax.

* HMM... I'M NOT A MATH WIZ.. BUT WOULDN'T THAT BE UNDER 20%...???

The President and First Lady also reported donating $150,034 – or about 24.6% of their adjusted gross income – to 33 different charities. The largest reported gift to charity was $103,871 to the Fisher House Foundation.

* VERY NICE... HOWEVER... THEY TOOK THE WRITE-OFF. IN OTHER WORDS, HIS CHARITABLE DONATIONS TOOK AWAY FROM HIS "FAIR SHARE" OF FEDERAL TAXES... RIGHT?

* FOLKS. MARY AND I PROBABLY GAVE ABOUT 2% OF WHAT THE OBAMAS DID TO CHARITY... AND YET... WE DIDN'T WRITE OFF ONE PENNY. WE DIDN'T GET "PARTIAL REIMBURSEMENT" FOR OUR DONATIONS VIA WRITE-OFFS LIKE THE OBAMAS DID.

(*SHRUG*)

The President’s effective federal income tax rate is 18.4%.

* ON $608,611.00 IN ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME... (SO MUCH FOR "THE 1% PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE.")

The President believes we must reform our tax system which is why he has proposed policies like the Buffett Rule that would ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share while protecting families making under $250,000 from seeing their taxes go up. Under the President’s own tax proposals, including limitations on the value of tax preferences for high-income households, he would pay more in taxes while ensuring we cut taxes for the middle class and those trying to get in it.

* FOLKS... BOTTOM LINE... ASK THE OBAMAS WHAT A "FAIR" FEDERAL TAX RATE ON A $608,611.00 JOINT ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME SHOULD BE. UNLESS THEIR ANSWER IS "18.4% OR LESS" THEY'RE HYPOCRITES. WHY...??? BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A SIMPLE THING TO HAVE THEIR ACCOUNTANT FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY'D OWE IF "THEIR" TAX PROPOSALS WERE ALREADY LAW AND THEN SIMPLY SEND A CHECK TO THE TREASURY FOR THE "UNDERPAYMENT."

* FOLKS... IF THE OBAMAS TRULY BELIEVE THOSE MAKING OVER HALF A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR SHOULD BE TAXED AT 40%... OR 45%... OR EVEN 50%... LET THE OBAMAS PUT THEIR MONEY WHERE THEIR MOUTHS ARE AND SEND THE IRS A CHECK REFLECTIVE OF THEIR PROPOSED "FAIR" RATE!

* AS TO THE CHARITY... WELL... LET'S MAKE THE MATH SIMPLE: IF THE OBAMAS MADE $600,000.00 AND WERE TAXED AT 50% THAT WOULD LEAVE THEM WITH AN INCOME OF $300,000.00 - ROUGHLY SIX TIMES MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME IN AMERICA TODAY. IF THEY THEN DONATED $150,000.00 TO CHARITY... THEY'D STILL BE LEFT WITH $150,000.00 - ROUGHLY THRE TIMES MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME IN AMERICA TODAY.

The President and First Lady also released their Illinois income tax return and reported paying $29,450 in state income tax.

* WHICH THEY DEDUCTED FROM THEIR FEDERAL TAXES...

(*SMIRK*)

* FRANKLY, FOLKS, THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY STATE INCOME TAX. THEY LIVE IN WASHINGTON, D.C. (SEE... I'LL ALWAYS BE FAIR... ALWAYS TRY TO BE INTELLECTUALLY CONSISTENT!)

William R. Barker said...

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/04/elizabeth-warren-pays-interns-0-per-hour/

* IT IS DISGUSTING.

* FOLKS... LISTEN... JUST AS THE NATION RE-ELECTED BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, MASSACHUSETTS ELECTED THIS LYING, HYPOCRITICAL PIECE OF GARBAGE WARREN.

(*SIGH*)

* IF AMERICA ISN'T ON SUICIDE WATCH... (*PAUSE*)... IT SHOULD BE.

* JUST... JUST... JUST FOLLOW THE LINK AND READ THE ARTICLE.

William R. Barker said...

* THREE-PARTER... (Part 1 of 3)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324600704578402760760473582.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

As the gun debate rolls through the states and the Senate, we can't help but wonder how Supreme Court Justices view the spectacle.

What's going on is nothing short of massive political resistance to the Court's recent and historic rulings on gun control.

* YEP! BEEN THINKING THE SAME THING ALL ALONG!

In 2008, a five-Justice majority found in District of Columbia v. Heller that the right to bear arms applies to individuals, not merely to militias. The ruling invalidated a Washington, D.C. ban on handguns.

Lest there be any doubt, in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010 the Court applied Heller to the 50 states.

(That decision overturned a Chicago law that banned handguns.)

These are landmark rulings, defining the Second Amendment with more specificity as the Court has done for other parts of the Bill of Rights.

Yet judging by the laws now being debated and in some cases passed, you'd think those rulings didn't exist. Liberal majorities are rolling over them as if they were op-eds from a third-rate think tank.

* THAT'S BECAUSE THERE'S LITTLE RESPECT FOR THE RULE OF LAW IN AMERICA. THE LAW IS WHAT THE MOST MOMENTARILY POWERFUL POLITICIANS SAY IT IS. THE CONSTITUTION...? IT MIGHT AS WELL NOT EXIST.

* OH... AND, FOLKS... IT'S NOT JUST THE CITIZENRY AND POLITICIANS WHO HAVE DESTROYED THE RULE OF LAW AND "BROKEN" THE CONSTITUTION - IT'S SUPREME COURT JUSTICES THEMSELVES! FOLKS... WHEN CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS BASICALLY ADMITTED TO VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION FOR "PRAGMATIC" REASONS IN ORDER TO UPHOLD OBAMACARE THAT "PUT PAID" TO THE CONSTITUTION.

* TO BE CONTINUED...

William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 3)

Consider the newly passed bans in New York, Maryland and Connecticut on "assault weapons," which is the political term for semi-automatic rifles. Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion in Heller noted that the Second Amendment does not protect ownership of all weapons, but his ruling explicitly held that the right to bear arms applies to guns "in common use."

When the Second Amendment was written, Justice Scalia wrote, "The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms 'in common use at the time' for lawful purposes like self-defense."

About 40% of rifles today are semi-automatic, which means they fire a single round with each pull of a trigger. That sure sounds like a gun in "common use."

* YEP!

* AND, FOLKS... IF YOU WANNA PLAY GAMES WITH THE MEANING OF "COMMON"... THINK OF THIS: HOMOSEXUALS ARE WHAT... 4%... 5%... 7% OF THE POPULATION? AND YET HOMOSEXUALITY IS BEING LEGALLY PORTRAYED NOT ONLY AS "COMMON"... NOT ONLY AS "PROTECTED"... BUT AS MEETING THE SAME STANDARD LEGALLY (MARRIAGE, ETC.) AS HETEROSEXUAL IDENTITY. IF YOU BUY THE "4% STANDARD" FOR HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS... WELL... CERTAINLY THE "40% STANDARD" SHOULD SUFFICE FOR ACTUAL SPELLED-OUT IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS RIGHTS!

(*GRIN*)

The new laws try to sneak around this standard by banning rifles with such features as pistol grips, flash suppressors and bayonet mounts. Connecticut's new law bans 100 kinds of weapons based on such features. Yet none of these cosmetic changes relates to the essential semi-automatic nature or lethality of the rifle.

* CONNECTICUT'S LAW IS BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. INDEED, I'D LIKE TO SEE THE SUPREME COURT ORDER ALL CONNECTICUT LEGISLATORS AND THE GOVERNOR TO BE JAILED FOR CONTEMPT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN PASSING SUCH BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION!

After Heller, the D.C. Council staged its own insurrection by limiting purchases of semi-automatic rifles and large magazines. The restrictions were upheld in an odd 2-1 decision by a panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in which Judge Douglas Ginsburg conceded that semi-automatic rifles were in common use but that because they were especially dangerous, they could be restricted anyway.

(*SNORT*)

Judge Ginsburg seems to have ignored Heller's finding that as a core individual right the Second Amendment is entitled to what lawyers call "heightened scrutiny." Under that standard, the burden of proof shifts to the government to prove that any law infringing on the right advances a government interest.

* JUSTICE GINSBURG SHOULD BE IMPEACHED AND REMOVED FROM THE BENCH. THERE'S SIMPLY NO DOUBT THAT HE DELIBERATELY IGNORED SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT - RECENT PRECEDENT AT THAT!

* TO BE CONTINUED...

William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 3 of 3)

The state has an interest in public safety, but Heller overturned a ban on semi-automatic handguns, which are used in far more violent crimes than are rifles. If banning handguns is unconstitutional, then surely banning rifles is too.

(*SMIRK*)

As Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote in his dissent at the D.C. Circuit, there is "no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic rifles." The Supreme Court didn't take up the D.C. rifle ban, but the new state bans are invitations for the Justices to reassert Heller's core finding.

The new state laws also limit the number of rounds in a magazine — to as few as seven in New York. Yet high-capacity magazines are also in common use. A genuinely large magazine might be illegal under Heller, but a limit of as few as seven or 10 rounds becomes a practical barrier to the right to bear arms for self-protection. An experienced gunman needs only seconds to slam in a new clip, but such a limit disproportionately affects a nervous homeowner's ability to take multiple shots at an intruder.

This blatant challenge to the High Court's authority is all the more remarkable given that its gun rulings are so recent. Yet the resistance is being cheered on without so much as a press corps whimper.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

This is in marked contrast to the high media dudgeon that has greeted recent state laws narrowing the pregnancy time-window on abortions in North Dakota and Arkansas. Our guess is that these laws will also be overturned, but they are a less blatant affront to Roe v. Wade than an outright gun ban is to Heller.

(*SHRUG*)

Part of the liberal calculation here may be that Heller was decided 5-4, so only a single change of mind is needed to make a gun ban constitutional. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (a dissenter in Heller) has gone so far as to suggest publicly that a "future, wiser court" might reconsider the ruling. Her remark was highly inappropriate for a Justice, essentially inviting the kind of political resistance we're now seeing. But in any case, Heller remains the law until it is overturned.

* GINSBURG IS A TRAITOR. SHE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN THE CONSTITUTION. THAT MAKES HER A TRAITOR. SHE WAS FREE AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN TO OPPOSE THE CONSTITUTION... TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD GUT THE CONSTITUTION... BUT AS A JUSTICE IT'S HER RESPONSIBILITY TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION WE ACTUALLY HAVE AND NOT THE ONE WHICH DOESN'T EXIST WHICH SHE'D LIKE TO SEE EXIST. THUS... TRAITOR.

Governor Dannell Malloy calls Connecticut's new law "the most far-reaching gun safety legislation in the country" and a model for other states.

It's a model, all right — of disregard for the Supreme Court, and not unlike the massive resistance in some Southern states that followed Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.

The main difference now is that the media are cheering on the politicians thumbing their noses at the law of the land.